1.What is Thomas Nagel Trying to prove in his essay what Is It like to be a Bat? What sort of evidence does he offer in favor of this conclusion? Do you think that his evidence adequately support his conclusion? why or why not? If Nagels argument worked, what would be the major implication for trying to explain human consciousness scientifically? (please be precise)

2. In his Essay Epiphenomenal Qualia, Frank Jackson presents what he calls the knowledge argument for his conclusion. What is this argument? How does he say it differs from other arguments in favor of the same conclusion? Do you agree with what he says there ?why or why not? Do you agree with his thesis that the knowledge argument is a good argument overall? why or why not? And what the heck are epiphenomenal qualia anyways?
3.Saul Kripke has a two-stage argument in favor of the particular picture he has of the nature of the mind-brain connection. In the first stage, he argues in favor of certain view of how science explanation operates. What is that view? What argument does kripke offers in its favor? Do you agree with that argument ?why or why not? What are the implications of such a view for a functionalist explanation of the mind-brain connection?
4. What is Colin McGinns view on the nature of the mind -Brain debate? What reasons does he give in favor of this view ? Do you agree with his view or disagree? Why? In Answering the latter question, try to trace out as best you can a plausible, reasonably well-supported theory of either scientific progress or philosophical understanding that makes sense of what you say.

Note; the book for this class is ; Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings by David J. Chalmers (ISBN 978-0195145816).
(these is a copy of the book online)